The effect of an anomalous Higgs trilinearself-coupling on the h→ γ Z decay

G. Degrassi, M. Vitti

Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università di Roma Tre andINFN, sezione di Roma Tre, I-00146 Rome, Italy

Abstract

We compute the two-loop effects induced by an anomalous Higgstrilinear self-coupling in the partial decay width h → γZ. Thecomputation is performed using the anomalous coupling approachworking in the unitary gauge and in a theory in which the anoma-lous coupling is generated via the addition to the scalar potentialpart of the Standard Model Lagrangian of an (in)finite tower of(Φ†Φ)n terms. The former computation is automatically finitewhile the latter requires the renormalization of the lowest ordercontribution. We discuss the renormalization conditions thatshould be employed in order to obtain the same result in the twoapproaches. We find that the h→ γZ process is one of the mostsensitive mode to an anomalous trilinear Higgs self-coupling. Asa by-product of this work we confirm one of two different re-sults present in the literature concerning the contribution of ananomalous Higgs trilinear coupling in the h→ γγ decay.

e-mail:

degrassi@fis.uniroma3.it

marco.vitti@uniroma3.it

arX

iv:1

912.

0642

9v1

[he

p-ph

] 1

3 D

ec 2

019

1 Introduction

The properties of the scalar particle with mass around 125 GeV discoveredat the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2012 [1, 2] have been extensivelystudied since its observation. These studies show strong evidence that thecoupling of this particle to fermions and vector bosons are compatible within10− 20% with those of the Higgs boson as predicted in the Standard Model(SM) of elementary particles.

The complete identification of the scalar particle discovered in 2012 withthe Higgs boson of the SM requires also the study of the Higgs self inter-actions that come from the scalar potential part in the SM Lagrangian. Inthe SM, the Higgs potential in the unitary gauge reads

V (h) =m2H2h2 + λ3vh

3 +λ44h4 (1)

where the Higgs mass (mH) and the trilinear (λ3) and quartic (λ4) inter-actions are linked by the relations λSM4 = λ

SM3 = λ = m

2H/(2 v

2), wherev = (

√2Gµ)

−1/2 is the vacuum expectation value, and λ is the coefficientof the (Φ†Φ)2 interaction, Φ being the Higgs doublet field.

The experimental verification of these relations relies on the measure-ments of double-Higgs and triple-Higgs productions. However, since thecross sections for these processes are quite small, constraining λ3 and λ4couplings within few times their predicted SM value is already extremelychallenging. In the case of double Higgs production at present only ex-clusion limits are available. The most stringent result, coming from theATLAS combination of the bb̄bb̄, bb̄ττ and bb̄γγ channels, allows to set abound −5λSM3 < λ3 < 12λSM3 at 95% C.L. [3]. It is not yet clear if doubleHiggs production will be observed at the end of the high luminosity (HL)period of LHC with a collected luminosity of 3000 fb−1 or just O (1) boundson λ3 are going to be set. Concerning λ4, given the smallness of the triple-Higgs production cross section (around 0.1 fb at

√s = 14 TeV) λ4 will be

only very loosely constrained at the HL-LHC.In order to constrain the trilinear Higgs self-coupling, a complementary

strategy based on precise measurements was proposed. In this approach theeffects induced at the loop level on various processes by a modified λ3 cou-pling are studied. This approach builds on the assumption that New Physics(NP) couples to the SM via the Higgs potential in such a way that thelowest-order Higgs couplings to the other fields of the SM (and in particularto the top quark and vector bosons) are still given by the SM prescriptionsor, equivalently, modifications to these couplings are so small that do not

2

swamp the loop effects one is considering. This strategy was first appliedto ZH production at an e+e− collider in Ref. [4], later to Higgs productionand decay modes at the LHC [5–11] and also to the study of electroweakprecision observables [12,13]. Using this strategy a recent analysis of the AT-LAS Collaboration set a more stringent bound, −2.3λSM3 < λ3 < 10.3λSM3at 95% C.L., by combining the single Higgs boson analyses targeting theγγ, ZZ?, WW ?, τ+τ− and bb decay channels and the double Higgs bosonanalyses in the bb̄bb̄, bb̄ττ and bb̄γγ decay channels using data collected at√s = 13 TeV [14].

The aim of this work is twofold. On one side we continue the program ofidentifying in single Higgs processes the λ3-dependent loop contributions byexamining the h→ γZ decay. On the other side we use this decay to showin detail, for contributions that arise at two-loop level, the equivalence, atthe loop order we are working, of two approaches. In the first one, followingRef. [5], the λ3-dependent loop contributions are studied via the introductionof a rescaling factor multiplying the trilinear SM coupling, λ3 = κλλ

SM3 ,

with λSM3 ≡ Gµm2H/√

2, working in the unitary gauge (UG): this is theso called κ-framework or anomalous coupling approach. The second one isbased on the modification of the SM scalar potential via the addition ofhigher-dimensional operators that affect only the Higgs self-coupling, i.e an(in)finite tower of (Φ†Φ)n terms (n > 2). The latter, when only the termn = 3 is assumed, corresponds to the SM effective field theory (SMEFT)approach with one single dimension-six operator, the O6 = (Φ

†Φ)3 one.The calculation of λ3-dependent loop contributions in the h→ γZ decay

shares many similarities with the analogous calculation for h→ γγ. For thisprocess the results in the literature obtained using the anomalous couplingapproach [5] and the SMEFT approach [6] are not in agreement. As by-product of our h→ γZ analysis we resolve this discrepancy.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we present the generalstructure of the λ3-dependent contribution in Γ(h → γZ) outlining the(approximate) way this contribution is evaluated. In section 3 we discuss therenormalization conditions that should be imposed on the scalar potentialof a (Φ†Φ)n theory in order to obtain a result for the anomalous trilinearcontribution that is identical to the one obtained in the κ-framework workingin the UG where the renormalization of the one-loop contribution is notneeded. Section 4 presents our results for the λ3-dependent contribution inthe partial width Γ(h → γZ) and its corresponding branching ratio (BR).Finally, in the Conclusions we shortly discuss the contribution due to ananomalous trilinear Higgs coupling in Γ(h→ γγ) confirming the equivalencebetween the κ-framework and the SMEFT with the O6 operator.

3

2 λ3-dependent contribution in Γ(h→ γZ)We begin by recalling the structure of the λ3-dependent contribution in sin-gle Higgs processes as discussed in Ref. [5]. This contribution arises fromnext-to-leading order (NLO) electroweak (EW) corrections and can be or-ganized in two categories: a universal part proportional to (κλ)

2 due to thewave-function renormalization of the external Higgs boson, and a process-dependent part linear in κλ that in general depends on the kinematics ofthe process under consideration.

Specializing to the h→ γZ decay we write for the λ3-dependent contri-bution in the width

Γλ3 = ZH ΓLO (1 + κλC1) , (2)

with

ZH =1

1− κ2λ δZH, (3)

δZH = −9

16

Gµm2H√

2π2

(2π

3√

3− 1)

= −1.536 · 10−3 . (4)

In eq.(2) C1 is the process-dependent contribution that will be presented inthis paper while ΓLO stands for the LO prediction. Neglecting O(κ3λ α2) therelative corrections induced by an anomalous trilinear Higgs self-couplingcan be expressed as

dΓλ3 ≡ΓNLO − ΓSMNLO

ΓLO= (κλ − 1)C1 + (κ2λ − 1)C2 , (5)

where ΓSMNLO is the NLO SM result1 and

C2 =δZH

(1− κ2λδZH). (6)

The range of validity of eq.(5) can be identified according to Ref. [5] with|κλ| . 20 where this bound was derived via an estimate of the missing termsin the perturbative calculation of single Higgs processes.

Because the photon does not couple directly to neutral particles, thedecay process h→ γZ receives contribution at LO from one-loop diagrams.Then, the evaluation of the C1 coefficient requires a two-loop calculation.An exact evaluation of the λ3-dependent two-loop diagrams is not possible.Then, we employ the same strategy used in the analogous calculation of the

1In the SM NLO result only the contribution proportional to λSM3 is included.

4

Γ(h → γγ) [5], namely the relevant diagrams are computed via a Taylorexpansion in the external momenta. Calling q1 and q2 the momenta of thephoton and of the Z, respectively, we make an expansion in the parametersq21/(4m

2), q22/(4m2) and (q1 · q2)/(4m2) where m is the mass of any particle

running into the loops, i.e. m = mt, mH , mW , mZ , and at the end of thecomputation we set q21 = 0, q

22 = m

2Z and (q1 · q2) = (m2H − m2Z)/2. We

point out that our expansion parameters are all smaller than 1 although notalways very small.

In order to test the consistency of our small-momentum expansion ap-proach we first compare the LO contribution computed exactly, with itsevaluation via a small momentum expansion in the UG.

The h→ γZ decay width can be written,

Γ(h→ γZ) =G2µm

2Zα m

3H

64π4

(1− m

2Z

m2H

)3|F|2 (7)

withF = NcQt (I3t − 2Qt sin2 θW )Ft + cos2 θWFW (8)

where θW is the weak angle, while Ft and FW are the fermionic and bosoniccontributions to the amplitude, respectively. In the former we are consider-ing only the dominant top quark contribution that sets the color factor, theelectric charge and the weak isospin to be Nc = 3, Qt = 2/3, I3t = 1/2.

At LO the Ft and FW terms can be written [15,16]

FLOt = 2[I1(1/h4t, 1/z4t)− I2(1/h4t, 1/z4t)

](9)

FLOW = 4(3− tan2 θW )I2(1/h4w, 1/z4w)

+[(1 + 2h4w) tan

2 θW − (5 + 2h4w)]I1(1/h4w, 1/z4w) (10)

where h4i = m2H/(4m

2i ) and z4i = m

2Z/(4m

2i ). The functions I1 and I2 are

defined as

I1(τ, λ) =τλ

2(τ − λ)+

τ2λ2

2(τ − λ)2[f(τ)− f(λ)

]+

τ2λ

(τ − λ)2[g(τ)− g(λ)

],

(11)

I2(τ, λ) = −τλ

2(τ − λ)

[f(τ)− f(λ)

], (12)

5

where (for x ≥ 1)

f(x) = arcsin2

(1√x

), g(x) =

√x− 1 arcsin

(1√x

). (13)

Using the small-momentum expansion we obtain the following expres-sions for the fermionic and bosonic contributions

FLOt =2

3+

1

45h4t(7 + 11zh) +

4

315h24t(5 + 8zh + 11z

2h

)+

4

1575h34t(13 + 21zh + 29z

2h + 37z

3h

)+

128

51975h44t(8 + 13zh + 18z

2h + 23z

3h + 28z

4h

)+O(h54t) (14)

FLOW = −7−2

15h4w(11− 37zh) +

4

105h24w

(−19− zh + 31z2h

)− 8

1575h34w

(87 + 19zh − 39z2h − 97z3h

)− 16

17325h44w

(328 + 93zh − 32z2h − 157z3h − 282z4h

)+O(h54w)(15)

where zh = m2Z/m

2H .

We checked that eq.(14) and eq.(15) match exactly the expansion of theexpressions in eq.(9) and eq.(10) in the limit of small h4i and z4i.

Neglecting the last known contribution in eqs.(14,15), i.e. O(h44t) andO(h44w), the numerical result for the decay width obtained with the small-momentum expansion differs from the evaluation of the exact expression by2.6%. Including also this last term the difference reduces to 1.3%. Then,we can estimate that the evaluation of the two-loop contribution via a smallmomentum expansion including O(h34t) and O(h34w) is expected to differfrom the exact result by O(5%).

The C1 coefficient in eq.(5) can be defined as [5]

C1 =

∫dΦ 2Re

(M0∗M1

λSM3

)∫dΦ |M0|2

(16)

where the integration in dΦ is over the phase space of the final-state particles,M0 is the Born amplitude and M1

λSM3is the λSM3 -linearly-dependent contri-

bution in the the loop-corrected amplitude evaluated in the SM. However,since in the h → γZ case the phase-space integral is just a multiplicative

6

γ

Z

h

h

t

Z

(a)

γ

Z

h

h

W

Z

W

W

(b)

Figure 1: Examples of two-loop diagrams contributing to the h → γZ am-plitude: (a) diagram contributing to Ft; (b) diagram contributing to FW .

factor and both amplitudes are purely real, C1 can be more easily writtenas

C1 =2 FNLO1PIFLO

. (17)

where FNLO1PI represents the one-particle irreducible (1PI) two-loop diagramscontaining an h3 interaction.

In order to evaluate the C1 coefficient we generated, in the UG, the two-loop diagrams contributing to the h→ γZ amplitude using the Mathematicapackage FeynArts [17]. As in the one-loop case the diagrams can be assignedto the two categories Ft, FW , see fig. 1. The diagrams were manipulatedusing the package FeynCalc [18,19], expanded in the external momenta andreduced to scalar integrals using a private code. After the reduction to scalarintegrals we were left with the evaluation of two-loop vacuum integrals thatwere computed analytically using the results of Ref. [20].

The result for C1 is automatically finite in the unitary gauge, i.e. norenormalization is needed, since the LO result does not depend on the tri-linear coupling. As expected the fermionic and bosonic contributions areseparately finite.

3 λ3-dependent contribution in a (Φ†Φ)n theory

This section is devoted to discuss how the result obtained in the κ-frameworkworking in the UG can be recovered using a SM Lagrangian with a modifiedscalar potential of the form

V NP =

N∑n=1

c2n(Φ†Φ)n , Φ =

(φ+

1√2(v + h+ iφ2)

), (18)

working in a renormalizable gauge that we choose for simplicity to be theFeynman one (FG). In eq.(18) N can be a finite integer or infinite, and in

7

the latter case we assume the series to be convergent, while the SM potentialis recovered setting N = 2 with c2 = −m2 and c4 = λ, where −m2 is theHiggs mass term in the SM Lagrangian in the unbroken phase.

A simplified discussion of the equivalence of the κ-framework with a(Φ†Φ)n theory, when the modification of the trilinear Higgs self-couplingappears at the two-loop level, was presented in Ref. [12]. In that referencethe renormalization of the scalar potential in eq.(18) was not discussed indetail because it was not needed. While the calculation of Γ(h→ γZ) in theκ-framework is automatically finite, the one in a (Φ†Φ)n theory requires toaddress the renormalization of the scalar potential. It is then natural to tryto devise a renormalization procedure such that one obtains automaticallythe same result in the two approaches.

The potential V NP up to quintic interactions can be written as

V NP5φ = v τ h+ τ

[φ+φ− +

1

2φ22

]+

1

2m2H h

2 +

(M2H2v

+ v dλ3

)h3 +

M2Hv

h

[φ+φ− +

1

2φ22

]+M2H2 v2

[φ+φ− +

1

2φ22

]2+(

M2H2 v2

+ dλ4

)1

4h4 +

(M2H2v2

+ 3 dλ3

)h2[φ+φ− +

1

2φ22

]+

1

v

{dλ5h

5 + (−3 dλ3 + dλ4)h3[φ+φ− +

1

2φ22

]+

3 dλ3 h

[φ+φ− +

1

2φ22

]2}. (19)

The condition of the minimum of the potential reads

d V NP

d h

∣∣∣∣h=0

= v τ = vN∑n=1

c2n n

(v2

2

)n−1= 0 , (20)

and

m2H = v2

N∑n=1

c2n n(n− 1)(v2

2

)n−2+

N∑n=1

c2n n

(v2

2

)n−1≡M2H + τ (21)

that enforcing the minimum condition implies m2H = M2H . The anomalous

8

γ

Z

h

φ+

(a)

γ

Z

h

φ+

W

(b)

γ

Z

h

φ+

(c)

Figure 2: Examples of one-loop diagrams contributing in the FG to theh→ γZ process whose renormalization gives rise to a contribution propor-tional to an anomalous Higgs self-coupling.

contributions in eq.(19) are:

dλ3 =1

3

N∑n=3

c2n n(n− 1)(n− 2)(v2

2

)n−2, (22)

dλ4 =2

3

N∑n=3

c2n n2(n− 1)(n− 2)

(v2

2

)n−2(23)

dλ5 =1

30

N∑n=3

c2n n(n− 1)(n− 2)(3

2− 4n+ 2n2)

(v2

2

)n−2. (24)

Eqs.(22–24) give rise to anomalous trilinear and quadrilinear Higgs self-interactions as well as a quintic one. The h5 interaction proportional to dλ5is not relevant for our discussion while from the h3 interaction we are goingto identify κλ = 1 + 2v

2/m2H dλ3.All the diagrams contributing to h → γZ in the UG at the one-loop

level contain only quantities (i.e. the gauge couplings, the top and W mass)whose one-loop renormalization is not affected by Higgs self-interactions2.Instead, the situation is different in the FG where, at one loop, there arediagrams, see fig. 2, that contain a coupling proportional to M2H/v whoserenormalization is affected by anomalous Higgs self-couplings. Then, thecalculation in the FG requires to set a renormalization procedure for M2H/vas well as for the masses of the unphysical scalars.

Before discussing the renormalization of V NP we would like to notice fewthings concerning the one-particle-irreducible (1PI) two-loop diagrams inthe FG. The 1PI diagrams contain terms proportional to (dλ3)

2, i.e. (κλ)2,

see fig. 3(a), besides those from the wave-function renormalization of the

2The tadpole contribution is assumed to be fully cancelled by the tadpole counterterm.

9

γ

Z

h

h φ+

(a)

γ

Z

h

φ+h

(b)

Figure 3: Examples of 1PI diagrams that contain contributions not presentin the κ-framework result. The dot (square) represents a coupling contain-ing dλ3 (dλ4): a) Contributions proportional to (dλ3)

2. b) Contributionsproportional to dλ4.

external Higgs fields. Furthermore, there are 1PI diagrams proportional todλ4 from the quintic h

3φ+φ− coupling, see fig. 3(b). Neither of these twokind of contributions are present in the κ-framework result and we expectour renormalization procedure to cancel exactly these contributions.

We are actually interested in defining the one-loop counterterms as-sociated to M2H , τ and v. Following closely Ref. [21] we assumed V

NP

to be written in terms of bare quantities that are shifted according to:c2n → cr2n − δc2n, v → vr − δv. As a consequence

V NP = V NPr − δV NP , (25)

where the renormalized potential up to quintic couplings has exactly thesame form given in eq.(19) but written in terms of renormalized quantities,while the relevant terms in δV NP that require to be defined at one-loop are:τ, m2H , M

2H , v.

To identify the vacuum as the minimum of the radiatively correctedpotential we set:

δ(v τ) = v δτ = v

N∑n=1

(v2

2

)n−1 [δc2n n+ c2n n(n− 1) 2

δv

v

]= −T (26)

where iT is the sum of the tadpole diagrams with external leg extracted. Weidentify m2H in eq.(19) as the on-shell Higgs mass leading to the condition(see eq.(21))

δm2H = δM2H + δτ = Re Πhh(m

2H) (27)

where −iΠhh(q2) is the sum of all 1PI self-energy diagrams and in eq.(27)no tadpole contribution is present because eq.(26) is enforced. Eqs.(26-27)

10

imply

δM2H = Re Πhh(m2H) +

T

v. (28)

The quantities Re Πhh(m2H) and T do contain terms proportional to dλ3

and dλ4 that will be relevant for our discussion. The other quantity we areinterested in is v, whose renormalization can be set, for example, either fromthe muon-decay process or the W mass and in both cases the correspondingcounterterm δv does not contain (at one-loop) terms proportional to anHiggs anomalous self-coupling and therefore will not enter in our discussion.

Eq.(26) and eq.(28) are the two definitions needed to address the two-loop calculation in the FG of the effect induced by an anomalous Higgstrilinear coupling on processes that are not sensitive at the tree or one-looplevel to an h3 interaction.

We find for the contribution proportional to dλ3 and dλ4 in T/v andRe Πhh(m

2H) in units α/(4π sin

2 θW )m2H/(8m

2W ):

T dλ

v=

(1 + 2

v2

m2Hdλ3

)3m2H

(1

�+ 1− ln m

2H

µ2

)(29)

Re Πdλhh(m2H) = −

(1 + 2

v2

m2Hdλ3

)29m2H

(1

�+ 2− π√

3− ln m

2H

µ2

)−(

1 + 2v2

m2Hdλ4

)3m2H

(1

�+ 1− ln m

2H

µ2

)−(

1 + 6v2

m2Hdλ3

)[2m2W

(1

�+ 1− ln m

2W

µ2

)+

m2Z

(1

�+ 1− ln m

2Z

µ2

)](30)

where � = (4 − nd)/2, nd being the dimension of the space-time, and µ isthe t-Hooft mass.

From the inspection of eq.(30) one sees that the counterterm associatedto M2H (eq.(28)) contains terms proportional to (dλ3)

2 and dλ4. It is easyto show that the renormalization of the one-loop diagrams proportional toM2H (see fig. 2) cancels exactly the 1PI two-loop contribution proportionalto (dλ3)

2, see fig. 3(a), as well as the one proportional to dλ4, see fig. 3(b),restoring in the FG the same dependence on the anomalous coupling foundin the κ-framework, i.e linear in κλ, apart the quadratic contribution relatedto the wave function renormalization, and no dependence on λ4.

The renormalization conditions eq.(26) specifies also the part of the masscounterterms for the unphysical scalars that is affected by anomalous Higgs

11

γ

Z

h

h

Z

Z

Figure 4: Two-loop reducible diagrams that give rise to a contribution pro-portional to dλ3 in the FG. The meaning of the dot is as in fig. 3.

self-couplings, i.e. δτ . A detailed discussion of the role of this countertermin the cancellations in the FG between 1PI and counterterm diagrams canbe found in Ref. [12].

To complete the calculation of the contribution of an anomalous trilinearHiggs self-coupling in the FG one has to take into account also the effect ofthe reducible diagrams shown in fig. 4. In a renormalizable gauge diagramsthat contain a γZ self-energy evaluated at vanishing external momentumalso contribute to FW . These diagrams do not contribute in the UG becausein this gauge the γZ self-energy evaluated at vanishing external momentumis zero.

We have computed the functions Ft and FW in the FG and found agree-ment with the result in the UG within the order of our approximation, asdiscussed in the next section. We remark that with our choice of renormal-ization conditions the agreement is found in a straightforward way becauseboth results are expressed in terms of physical quantities.

As a final remark we notice that the potential in eq.(18) has N c2ncoefficients, that are assumed to be bare quantities, while we needed to im-pose only two renormalization conditions, eq.(26) and eq.(27). Furthermore,the modifications of the Higgs self-couplings with respect to the SM values,dλi, i = 3.., involve only coefficients with n ≥ 3 (see eqs.(22-24)). Then, onone side we have constructed a framework such that the limit to the SMcase is straightforward. On the other, because we did not need to specifyany renormalization condition on the modifications dλi, the renormalizationof the latter is still free and can be specified via other processes.

4 Results

In this section we present the results for the C1 coefficient. In table 1 wegive the numerical results for the first four orders of the expansion of FNLOt

12

Fermionic h04t h14t h

24t h

34t Total

FNLOt (10−2) 0.197 0.086 0.016 0.003 0.303FNLOt /h04t 1.0 43.7% 8.1% 1.5%Bosonic h04w h

14w h

24w h

34w Total

FNLOW (10−2) -1.645 -0.538 -0.129 -0.043 -2.355FNLOW /h04w 1.0 32.7% 7.9% 2.6%

Table 1: Small-momentum expansion results for the two-loop λ3-dependentcontributions to the h → γZ amplitude. The importance of each term inthe expansion with respect to the first one is also shown.

and FNLOW up to and including terms of O(h34t) and O(h34w), respectively.The input parameters used are the same of Ref. [5], or

mW = 80.385, mZ = 91.1876, mH = 125, mt = 172.5 (31)

where all the masses are in GeV.The table shows that the expansions of both the fermionic and bosonic

contribution have a good convergence. In particular the last term in thefermionic expansion, O(h34t), contributes to the total fermionic contribu-tion at the level of 1%, while in the bosonic case the last term, O(h34w),contributes to the total at the level of 2%. Given FLO = −5.29 we findC1 = 0.72 · 10−2, a value larger than the C1 coefficient for the h → γγdecay (Cγγ1 = 0.49 · 10−2) and close to the one of the h → ZZ decay(CZZ1 = 0.83 · 10−2) that is the decay mode most sensitive to an anoma-lous trilinear coupling.

The effect of an anomalous λ3 in the partial decay width Γ(h→ γZ) andin the corresponding BR is presented in fig. 5 as a function of κλ. Similarlyto the other decay modes of the Higgs boson [5], the correction to the partialdecay width can be substantial even for −10 . κλ . 10, while for the samerange of κλ values the correction to the BR is much smaller because in theBR the universal quadratic dependence on κλ in eq.(5) cancels out.

Finally we want to comment on the numerical agreement between thecalculation using the κ-framework working in the UG and the one in a(Φ†Φ)n theory working in the FG. While the results of the expansion forthe fermionic contribution in the UG and in FG are equal at the analyticlevel term by term, the same is not true for the bosonic contribution. Thereason is related to the fact that the expansion in the external momenta is,in general, not the same in the two gauges. Indeed, part of the kinematic

13

-20 -10 10 20κλ

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

δΓ(h->γZ) [%]

(a)

-20 -10 10 20κλ

-10

-5

5

10

δBR[%]

(b)

Figure 5: Modification of the h→ γZ decay width (a) and branching ratio(b) due to an anomalous λ3.

dependence in the UG is transfer in a FG to couplings as can be easily under-stood looking at the one-loop diagrams. The diagrams in fig. 2, that appearin the FG, are proportional to mH from the coupling hφ

+φ−, while in theUG the only dependence from mH at one-loop is of kinematical origin whenthe external momenta are evaluated on-shell. In this situation we expectthat the evaluation of two-loop integrals via an expansion in kinematicalvariables will not give, at a fixed order, the same number in the UG andFG. However, if the expansion is made correctly, we expect the numericaldifference between the two results to be of higher order with respect to thelast known term.

Defining the quantity

∆FW =

∣∣∣∣∣2(FUGW −FFGW )(FUGW + FFGW )∣∣∣∣∣ (32)

as the relative difference between the results in the UG and the FG, we find∆FW = 2.6% for the total result, that is well within the expected accuracyof an expanded result up to and including h34w terms. In table 2 we present∆FW order by order in the expansion, to show the nice convergence patternbetween the numerical values in the UG and in the FG.

5 Conclusions

In this work we have discussed the modifications in the partial decay widthΓ(h → γZ) and in its BR induced by an anomalous trilinear Higgs self-coupling. The two-loop computation has been performed in the κ-framework

14

h04w h14w h

24w h

34w Total

FUGW (10−2) -1.645 -0.538 -0.129 -0.043 -2.355

FFGW (10−2) -1.181 -0.727 -0.280 -0.113 -2.301∆FW 32.8% 13.4% 5.5% 2.3%

Table 2: Relative importance of the difference between the UG and FGresults for the bosonic contributions, for different orders of the expansion.

and in a (Φ†Φ)n theory. In the latter case we had to address the renormaliza-tion of the scalar potential. We showed that the conditions on the minimumof the potential (eq.(26)) and on the Higgs mass (eq.(28)) are sufficient inorder to obtain a finite result in the (Φ†Φ)n theory in agreement with theone obtained in the κ-framework within the order of our approximate calcu-lation. It should be remarked that the two above renormalization conditionsdo not actually specify the Wilson coefficients of operators with dimensionlarger than 4.

We have found that the sensitivity of the h → γZ to an anomaloustrilinear Higgs self-coupling process is very similar to that of the h→WWmode that is the second most sensitive mode after the h→ ZZ one.

The same renormalization framework employed in this work can be usedto discuss the h→ γγ decay in a (Φ†Φ)n theory or, if only the terms n ≤ 3are considered, in the SMEFT with only the O6 operator. For this decaythere are in the literature two results, not in agreement, one obtained in theκ-framework via an expansion in the external momenta up to and includingterms h34t, h

34w [5] and one in the SMEFT where the diagrams were evaluated

in the limit mW →∞ or equivalently mH → 0 [6].We proved that the result obtained using a (Φ†Φ)n theory with the renor-

malization conditions discussed in section 3 is identical, at the analytic levelterm by term, with that obtained in the κ-framework confirming the resultof Ref. [5].

It is not easy to pin down the source of discrepancy with the result inRef. [6]. We suspect that it could be due to a different way of taking intoaccount the renormalization of M2H that gives a contribution also in the limitmH → 0 taken in that work.

15

Acknowledgements

The authors thanks F. Maltoni for useful comments. This work waspartially supported by the Italian Ministry of Research (MIUR) undergrant PRIN 20172LNEEZ.

References

[1] CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Observation of a new bosonat a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 30–61, [1207.7235].

[2] ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Observation of a new particle inthe search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLASdetector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B716 (2012) 1–29, [1207.7214].

[3] ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Combination of searches forHiggs boson pairs in pp collisions at

√s =13 TeV with the ATLAS

detector, 1906.02025.

[4] M. McCullough, An Indirect Model-Dependent Probe of the HiggsSelf-Coupling, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 015001, [1312.3322].

[5] G. Degrassi, P. P. Giardino, F. Maltoni and D. Pagani, Probing theHiggs self coupling via single Higgs production at the LHC, JHEP 12(2016) 080, [1607.04251].

[6] M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Indirect probes of the trilinear Higgscoupling: gg → h and h→ γγ, JHEP 10 (2016) 094, [1607.03773].

[7] W. Bizon, M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch and G. Zanderighi, Constraints onthe trilinear Higgs coupling from vector boson fusion and associatedHiggs production at the LHC, 1610.05771.

[8] F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, A. Shivaji and X. Zhao, Trilinear Higgscoupling determination via single-Higgs differential measurements atthe LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017) 887, [1709.08649].

[9] F. Maltoni, D. Pagani and X. Zhao, Constraining the Higgsself-couplings at e+e colliders, JHEP 07 (2018) 087, [1802.07616].

[10] S. Borowka, C. Duhr, F. Maltoni, D. Pagani, A. Shivaji and X. Zhao,Probing the scalar potential via double Higgs boson production athadron colliders, JHEP 04 (2019) 016, [1811.12366].

16

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02025http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.015001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.039903https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.3322http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2016)080http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2016)080https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.04251http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2016)094https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.03773https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.05771http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5410-8https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.08649http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2018)087https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07616http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2019)016https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.12366

[11] M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Two-loop amplitudes for Higgs plus jetproduction involving a modified trilinear Higgs coupling, JHEP 04(2019) 062, [1902.05480].

[12] G. Degrassi, M. Fedele and P. P. Giardino, Constraints on thetrilinear Higgs self coupling from precision observables, JHEP 04(2017) 155, [1702.01737].

[13] G. D. Kribs, A. Maier, H. Rzehak, M. Spannowsky and P. Waite,Electroweak oblique parameters as a probe of the trilinear Higgs bosonself-interaction, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 093004, [1702.07678].

[14] ATLAS collaboration, Constraints on the Higgs boson self-couplingfrom the combination of single-Higgs and double-Higgs productionanalyses performed with the ATLAS experiment, Tech. Rep.ATLAS-CONF-2019-049, CERN, Geneva, Sept, 2019.

[15] R. N. Cahn, M. S. Chanowitz and N. Fleishon, Higgs ParticleProduction by Z → Hγ, Phys. Lett. 82B (1979) 113–116.

[16] L. Bergstrom and G. Hulth, Induced Higgs Couplings to NeutralBosons in e+e− Collisions, Nucl. Phys. B259 (1985) 137–155.

[17] T. Hahn, Generating Feynman diagrams and amplitudes withFeynArts 3, Comput. Phys. Commun. 140 (2001) 418–431,[hep-ph/0012260].

[18] R. Mertig, M. Bohm and A. Denner, FEYN CALC: Computeralgebraic calculation of Feynman amplitudes, Comput. Phys.Commun. 64 (1991) 345–359.

[19] V. Shtabovenko, R. Mertig and F. Orellana, New Developments inFeynCalc 9.0, 1601.01167.

[20] A. I. Davydychev and J. B. Tausk, Two loop selfenergy diagrams withdifferent masses and the momentum expansion, Nucl. Phys. B397(1993) 123–142.

[21] A. Sirlin and R. Zucchini, Dependence of the Quartic Coupling H(m)on mH and the Possible Onset of New Physics in the Higgs Sector ofthe Standard Model, Nucl. Phys. B266 (1986) 389–409.

17

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2019)062http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2019)062https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05480http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2017)155http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2017)155https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01737http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.093004https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.07678http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(79)90438-6http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(86)90074-X, 10.1016/0550-3213(85)90302-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(01)00290-9https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0012260http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(91)90130-Dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(91)90130-Dhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1601.01167http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(93)90338-Phttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(93)90338-Phttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(86)90096-9

1 Introduction2 3-dependent contribution in (h Z)3 3-dependent contribution in a ()n theory4 Results5 Conclusions